ozon_question_reply

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the action and does not explain side effects, whether the reply is publicly visible, whether it can be edited or deleted, or what success/error response to expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, but the parenthetical '(ответить на вопрос)' is a redundant restatement of the English verb and does not earn its place. Otherwise, it is appropriately brief.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, so the description should compensate but does not. It omits how to obtain question_id, expected return behavior, and any caveats around replying, making the definition incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies sku ('needs the product sku'). It does not explain that question_id identifies the question being answered or what text should contain, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Reply to a buyer question') on a recognizable resource, and the Russian parenthetical confirms the intent. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from related sibling tools like ozon_review_reply or ozon_chat_send, so it falls short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by 'Reply to a buyer question,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention that question_id likely comes from ozon_questions, nor does it contrast with replying to reviews or chats.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.